You are here:

Faculty Voices: Barriers to Implementing UDL Strategies
PROCEEDING

, Wisconsin Technical Colleges (Gateway Technical College), United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The changing nature of higher education, particularly the growth of online enrollments, provides impetus for faculty access to resources that can be used to purposefully create engaging and supportive learning environments. Courses designed according to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles support this type of learning environment by providing learners with enhanced access to content and interaction. They increase the likelihood that learners will persist and achieve in their coursework. This is essential; evidence indicates online learners do not persist in course completion at the rate of their peers enrolled in face-to-face courses. Addressing the learning needs of a diverse group of online students is a hallmark of UDL. Some faculty commit to UDL strategies. Others struggle in their efforts to apply these principles. What are the barriers to applying UDL strategies in post-secondary, online courses? Recent research in a multi-district, technical college system yiel

Citation

Chapko, N. (2017). Faculty Voices: Barriers to Implementing UDL Strategies. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2516-2520). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved September 25, 2023 from .

© 2017 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T.T. (2016, February). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ315/pdf/PLAW-110publ315.pdf.
  2. Berquist, L. & Sadera, B. (2013). Conceptions about Universal Design for Learning and Technology: A Phenomenological Study of School Leaders. In R. McBride& M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 3036-3039). Chesapeake, VA:
  3. CAST. (2011, February 1). Types of evidence supporting UDL. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlevidence. CAST. (2014, July 31). UDL guidelines-version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines.
  4. Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (Publication No. 231). Retrieved from http://udlseries.udlcenter.org/presentations/udl_implementation.html.
  5. Gradel, K., & Edson, A.J. (2009). Putting Universal Design for Learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111-121. .
  6. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19-42. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/11.1.2.pdf. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
  7. Jaggars, S.S., & Xu, D. (2010, September). Community College Research Center: Online learning in the Virginia Community College System. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/online-learningvirginia.pdf.
  8. Kotter, J.P., & Schlesinger, L.A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 130139. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/07/choosing-strategies-for-change. McCarthy, S.A., & Samors, R.J. (2009, August). Online learning as a strategic asset. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517308.pdf.
  9. McGuire, J.M., & Scott, S.S. (2006). Universal design for instruction: Extending the universal design paradigm to college instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education& Disability, 19(2), 124-134.
  10. McQuiggan, C.A. (2012). Faculty development for online teaching as a catalyst for change. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 27-61. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/jaln/v16n2/facultydevelopment-online-teaching-catalyst-change.
  11. Nelson, L.L., & Basham, J.D. (2014). A blueprint for UDL: Considering the design of implementation [PDF]. Retrieved from http://udl-irn.org/s/Open_UDL-IRN_Blueprint_V1.pdf. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A.M., & Shaver, D. (2010). Comparisons across time of the outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of findings from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2010_09/nlts2_report_2010_09_complete.pdf.
  12. Ouellet, M.L. (2004). Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity& Excellence in Education, 37(2), 135-144. .
  13. Tobin, T.J. (2014). Increase online student retention with Universal Design for Learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13-24. Retrieved from http://www.engl.duq.edu/servus/cv/QRDE.UDL.Article.pdf.Wojciechowski,A.,&Palmer,L.B.(2005).Individualstudentcharacteristics:Cananybepredictorsofsuccessinonlineclasses?OnlineJournalofDistanceLearningAdministration,8(2),1-20.Retrievedfromhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/wojciechowski82.htm.
  14. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S.S. (2011, March). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance in Washington State community and technical colleges (CCRC Working Paper No. 31). Retrieved from http://67.205.94.182/media/k2/attachments/online-hybrid-performance-washington.pdf.
  15. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S.S. (2013, February). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas (CCRC Working Paper No. 54). Retrieved from http://67.205.94.182/media/k2/attachments/adaptability-to-online-learning.pdf.
  16. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S.S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633-659.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Presentation

Slides w/Audio View

Also Read

Related Collections